That was my point about Latin grammar. The verb is written in the indicative mood which shows that the example is something he believes to be true. If he did not believe it, the verb would have been in the subjunctive.
Examine the passage in the original Latin and you will see that I am right.
Thomas Aquinas may have been cajoled into thinking earth was a globe, as many are today, but the great saint certainly did not teach it. Not to mention that the Church attached anathema to anyone who might believe Aquinas or Augustine (or any saint) over the Church, or over the more unanimous opinion of the Fathers. Its the unanimity of the opinion of the Fathers', as well as such opinions held over time, that assists in determining doctrines more in need of being fleshed out. And regarding the verbiage of the Latin (above), that is only one aspect of making a determination about whether the quote is viewed correctly.
In the meantime, your arguments against flat earth are taking on the note of minutia. You could have been spared much (and spared us much) had you just asked questions, rather than running rough-shod over the people representing the geocentric flat earth.
The flat earth is not only
not a psyop or nor is it stupid, it was well entertained in antiquity, favored by Scripture, and even taught by Fathers of the Church. It is also scientifically and mathematically viable, empirically provable by even simple tests, but also at the deepest levels, and it removes all stupid contradictions like "level means curve" when globalists speak of the surface of the oceans bending around a globe.